ASDF1234

Whitney Davis discusses the paradoxical origin of the history of art in "Historical Narratives and the Philosophy of Art".  In order to have a Figure 1 that spearheads the evolution and replicability of art, there can be no contemporary comparison.  Rather, it must stand wholly alone.  Davis goes on to argue that " what is without comparison could not be in history and what is in history must be comparable at all costs"(346).  Some art historians seem to be grasping at straws for the elusive Figure 1, offering up conjecture regarding the association of the organization of the Acheulean archaeological site of Terra Amata with pictorial art.  Others examine the markings on bones, which could justifiably be produced nondeliberately, or study chimp markings.  Who is to say that the true origin of art does not lie scratched in the dirt, unrecognizable after the billions of footsteps since the dawn of time?  The evolution of civilization has been characterized by perpetual philosophical revolutions and uprisings in human thought.  The inquisitiveness of the human mind pushes society to discover or explain every minute detail about various topics throughout history.  One day in the future, the possibility exists that art historians will forgo the quest for the metaphysical Figure 1, realizing the futility of the search.  For what in actuality may be the beginning of the history of art may not be considered so by modern society.  With our advances in evolution, there is no possible way to live in the shoes, so to speak, of homo sapiens or Neanderthals who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago and recognize art through their eyes.  Even in modern society, the term art is loosely defined, understandable for such an elusive and subjective concept.

On page 335, Davis discusses the differences between art historical aesthetics and art historical forensics/archaeologists.  He mentions that the former conceive artworks as "autonomous whole thing(s)" while the latter "constantly discovers (...) disruptions."  Is this difference due to the aesthetics accepting the problems as the makers intentions and the archaeologists looking for problems in the art, or does the explanation go deeper?  Also, Davis mentions every artwork being connected to another by some association, some thread of history.  If this is the case, then is no art truly original?  I personally find it hard to fathom that an artist cannot be inspired but rather merely copies and convolutes another artists work.